It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by YouSir
I'll say we can certainly disagree on this then as we're remembering events very differently. I am assuming you lived through all that as an adult and watched it all, week by week and month by month as it developed in real time, right?
Ummm...That would be true if it was.....ONLY Bush...I seem to recall Colin Powell's statements of "fact" before the UN and the loud silence coming from EVERY western Intelligence apparatus. As for Bush being the vanguard...That would mean that there is in fact a real discernable difference between the two parties in the system and that Obama, DID, dismantle the Bush policies....rather than expand on them...
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by YouSir
I'll say we can certainly disagree on this then as we're remembering events very differently. I am assuming you lived through all that as an adult and watched it all, week by week and month by month as it developed in real time, right?
I can see, especially by reporting years after the events, how the impressions you describe are derived from the record. Again, I don't agree with it beyond saying that Congress did eventually sign off and it was a whole lot more Bi-Partisan than some are comfortable admitting today.
In my personal opinion, Bush was the vanguard and spearhead for that war happening. Without him. Congress wouldn't have cared or bothered with anything of the sort ...but they did give him a virtual blank check in the end, no question. For that, the guilt is a shared thing, to be sure. Shared, but not even...in my view.
Originally posted by YouSir
That would mean that there is in fact a real discernable difference between the two parties in the system and that Obama, DID, dismantle the Bush policies....rather than expand on them...
Originally posted by zeeon
As a combat veteran myself, who served 13 years, I feel where this guy is coming from.
Lest ye forget, Saddam WAS a brutal dictator.
Originally posted by bbracken677
Originally posted by sk8ter
Well you got me on spelling,, Never was any good at it.. But to your point.. It does not matter if the recession was worst then the crash in 29,, The fact is the Banks needed 850 billion,,, Next Bush also said the war would cost 60 billion,,, It did not... it cost over 3 trillion.,, plus hundreds of thousands of lives.. needlessly.. Kind of a big point don't you think.. Next the war was not over fast,,, Next The Banks still get Billions every month ...every month,, and they are the biggest welfare queens out there,,, Now I don't understand why you stick up for welfare for corp America.. and why you can't understand that this one guy felt he is going to die because the Country was lied to.. Congress was lied to... also I hate Obama's policies But this letter was about how Bush lied to us all...
Reading comprehension FTL. Do you see me sticking up for welfare for Corp America? Did I dispute the above items whatsoever? No..no, and no. I disputed the obviously incorrect statements you made and left the other's alone. However, I do remember Bush stating that "the war on terrorism" would last for decades and I do not remember him saying the war would cost 60 billion...While I will not dispute this since I do not know the source, I have extreme doubts about the 60 billion cost for the entire war remark (seeing as how that it would cost that much just to get assets in place to conduct the war). Can you provide a legitimate source for that?
If you really want to delve into banking, delve deeper than the superficial stuff that is provided by the media.... there is so much wrong with the banking industry that I could spend the next few hours writing about. them all.
I find it incredible that thousands of dollars worth of loans could be made based on a single deposit of 100 dollars. That is something that approaches a ponzi scheme in my opinion.
Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Originally posted by zeeon
As a combat veteran myself, who served 13 years, I feel where this guy is coming from.
Lest ye forget, Saddam WAS a brutal dictator.
You are no doubt an honorable person your children must be proud of. While I don't want to take that away from you, I do not wish to "Thank you for your service." Because you did not do it for the Freedom of the American people you have pledged to serve. Maybe for the Iraqis?
I do respect you for the courage and the pain you endured. Sir, your were misled then and, IMHO, your are still misguided now. We may well have the better political system, or the better mind-set, or the better whatever - but who appointed us to impose it on other nations? Do you believe it improved the lives of Americans?
Originally posted by sk8ter
The reason we did not go though a 29 type of depression was because of something called central planning,,
Ummm...Wow...Brer Rabbit...how you managed to circumnavigate a defense of Bush from my response is curious to say the least. I was not defending the man OR his regime...I merely pointed out to you that there were many players in the runup to and execution of the Iraq campaign, and that blame isn't reserved for only one man when so many others shared that particular limelight.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'll tell ya...It takes just one thread here to get a sincere understanding for why some people I consider friends on the left get pissed. I've never been on the receiving end of the Bush-Bot defense team. It's an interesting perspective....as I'm usually 'appearing' to defend the loser simply because people seem to use his bad Presidency as some justification for Obama's worse one.
Ummm...It is usually also the nature of those who respond to an OP in a thread to either agree or disagree...I see that I neglected to bow to general consensus. That being said when you state that Bush was the sole starter of the Iraq war...you are not being factual, you are IN FACT playing a game of semantics....Surely you do recall that Bush sought BOTH Congressional approval and UN mandates for the Iraq war? Therefore the AUTHORIZATION came NOT from the White house but from CONGRESS and the UN. This was accomplished through the efforts of the State Department in the person of Colin Powell and the complicity of intelligence, among other things....remember?
I figured on this thread, given the source of the OP material, nature of the sentiments and man it came from that absolutely earned the right to say whatever he wants and blame whomever he chooses....It might be fair to offer the fact Bush did start the wars. I mean, that's generally not a point of major contention.
I suppose if you insist that your version of history is the correct one and no one but you can hold an opinion on the matter then we can see where the spin part rears it's head. We can all certainly see that according to your formula...everything that occured under Obama's watch is pinned on his lapel...and his alone...
Like I said...Now I'm seeing why some people I know and in one case, recently made amends with from past issues ...get so defensive. Indeed.... I think this little experience changes my own perspective just a hair on that.
We can't even tell the truth of history anymore.. RECENT history for goodness sake..without 10 versions of how it needs to be seen this way or that or a spin needs applied before we can talk any further. Well... I don't spin. I just get dizzy and sick when I try.